|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 23, 2015 2:41:19 GMT -5
I think this speaks for itself, of where the idea of "being the only way/ true ministers " came from .
Jack Carroll - The True Ministers
The physical needs of the “true” ministry.and the “false” are exactly the same. “True ministers” need food, clothing, shelter and as a means of exchange, they need money. “False preachers” need food, clothing, shelter and money.
The question is asked, "What is the difference between your ministers and ours?" Well, their needs are the same we admit, but the difference lies in how those needs are supplied. Your preachers preach for a salary, ours don't. Your preachers appeal for money, ours don't. Your preachers have a home, ours don't. While these differences are true and help to distinguish the “false” from the “true” ministry, none of them or all of them together, give us the actual fundamental difference between the “true” ministry and the “false.”
The Old Testament is very clear with regard to how the priests and Levites were cared for in Old Testament days. The New Testament is equally clear with regard to how God's servants are taken care of today. Jesus taught, “the laborer is worthy of his hire.” I Corinthians 9:14.
The Lord hath ordained that they which preach the gospel should live by the gospel. We make no secret of the fact that, as God's bondservants and handmaidens, we live by the gospel and are justified in doing so, because we have fulfilled the conditions that Jesus laid down in the gospels. No man is justified in living by the gospel apart from fulfilling these conditions; and it is a pleasure to minister to them food, clothing, shelter and as a means of exchange—money—in His Name.
Jesus labored as a carpenter and lived by the work of His hands as a carpenter for 18 years; but for 3 years, He lived by the gospel and got His bread as a preacher of the gospel, just as honorably as He did when He was a carpenter. Jesus did not live on charity--giving nothing in return. Jesus always gives more than He receives. He accepted hospitality from Matthew the Publican, from Simon the Pharisee and from Lazarus. He always gave more than He received and in this He left us an example, that we should follow in His steps.
We do not live on charity. If any of God's professed people come to us in His name and as an expression of their love and interest in the furtherance of the Gospel, recognizing we have fulfilled the conditions that justify us in living by the gospel, it is our duty to accept; knowing even a cup of cold water given to God's servants “will in no wise lose its reward.”
What are the conditions Jesus laid down in the New Testament which He expects those to fulfill, who want to have a part in this ministry? I hope we are clear on what it costs our brothers and sisters to go forth into God's great harvest field. I will present these conditions in the form of questions.
1. Are you prepared to sell all? Are you prepared to make yourself poor? Are you willing, as the very first condition, to have fellowship with Jesus in His poverty? In connection with the New Testament ministry, there is a very real equality--no one of us make a greater sacrifice than the other. We each sacrifice ALL. We are all placed on the same level.
2. The second condition has to do with being homeless. Are you willing to be homeless for life? Jesus said, "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests but I, the Son of Man, hath no where to lay my head."
3. The third condition: Are you willing to put the preaching of the Gospel before the claims of your own flesh and blood, living or dead? Luke 9:59-62. Instead of Jesus bribing men to enter the ministry, it would almost seem as though He were trying to prevent them. Instead of making it easy for them, He made it hard, for He wanted to test the depth and sincerity of those who expressed a wish to have a part in the ministry. Do you appreciate that?
4. The fourth question is: Are you willing to go forth without having any individual or group pledged to take care of you and to preach the gospel without money and without price, whenever you have opportunity? We are glad to know that throughout the whole world, God's servants have been able to go forth in His Name and are preaching the Gospel as it was in the New Testament days, without money and without price.
5. The fifth question is: Are you willing to be as a corn of wheat which falls into the ground and dies? Are you willing to let death work so that life may be wrought in others? Are you willing to be dead to what is honorable and legitimate for others?
6. The sixth question is: How far are you willing to go in preaching the Gospel? There is no such thing as a settled or fixed ministry in the New Testament days. None of us are in any one state for life. Jesus said to His disciples, "Go ye forth into all the world, teaching all the nations and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.”
We often ask.those who are desirous of going forth, "Are you willing to go with any of your brethren?" We do not lightly undertake the arranging year after year of those who labor together. Those who have this responsibility seek for the wisdom of God and His guidance.
Only those who have fulfilled the conditions which I have enumerated are justified in living by the Gospel. They earn their bread just as honorably as when they worked with their hands at their different trades. They are worthy of their hire and it comes to them in God's appointed way.
Money, as a means of exchange, is used to enable God's servants to live, to travel to foreign countries, and it comes as the spontaneous, unsolicited, freewill offering of God's children. If you don't love to do it--the Lord doesn't accept it.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 23, 2015 2:47:32 GMT -5
Bert, Maybe you don't ''recall many workers doing it, (attacking other churches)" because you are a Newbie and haven't the 2x2's history that some of the rest of us have. I quote Parker because he's on the Internet and he wrote a book. I just can't recall anything Hardie said. Workers generally don't attack other churches. Lots of them don't even claim to be God's church anymore because they don't believe in God. However - I attack other churches, sometimes, even if I attend them.
But a question if I may - what exactly did Parker say about destroying our church?I think the Church is doing a pretty good job of destroying itself Bert, have a look at the Melbourne paper from last year to see an example. (Ernie Barry, Chris Chandler) Until CSA issues within are dealt with through the proper channels and something is put in place to protect child, I see little changing. www.smh.com.au/national/secrets-lies-and-sex-abuse-as-exsect-leader-chooses-life-on-the-inside-20140727-3cnnc.html
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Jul 23, 2015 2:50:31 GMT -5
Thanks Roselyn, that's actually a beautiful piece, can't say I knew the fellow and not sure when or where he said it, but look at the 2nd ladt paragraph, he didn't state it was the only way, just that those fulfilling the conditions are 'justified in living by the Gospel............'.......what do you think that means?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 2:56:20 GMT -5
Quote - "I think this speaks for itself, of where the idea of "being the only way/ true ministers " came from ." Jack Carroll - The True Ministers .......
Good grief. Jack Carroll invented the "being the only way" movement. I will have to put this in my quote inventory!
(wasn't Irvine supposed to have invented it too?)
Here are two other howlers....
1 - Workers initiated the “quietness program” before the start of meetings in the 1960’s or 1970’s. 2 - The Faith Mission was started by the founder being highly influenced by the Holiness movement. It's not surprising that their women resemble Holiness women.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 23, 2015 3:15:19 GMT -5
Bert, Maybe you don't ''recall many workers doing it, (attacking other churches)" because you are a Newbie and haven't the 2x2's history that some of the rest of us have. I quote Parker because he's on the Internet and he wrote a book. I just can't recall anything Hardie said. Workers generally don't attack other churches. Lots of them don't even claim to be God's church anymore because they don't believe in God. However - I attack other churches, sometimes, even if I attend them.
But a question if I may - what exactly did Parker say about destroying our church? Bert, - repeat after me three times:
"Maybe I don't recall many workers attacking other churches because I am a Newbie and haven't been the 2x2's as long as some others have."
"Maybe I don't recall many workers attacking other churches because I am a Newbie and haven't been the 2x2's as long as some others have."
"Maybe I don't recall many workers attacking other churches because I am a Newbie and haven't been the 2x2's as long as some others have."
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Jul 23, 2015 3:21:58 GMT -5
Roselyn, CSA is a societal problem, yes it was handled badly by the 2x2's, other churches, child care centre, community service groups, the police....everyone!!!! I am pleased to say that as a victim I'm relatively happy with how the 2x2's are addressing it now. Last year I had the privilege of being involved with an organisation whilst going through their records I came across an incident of CSA that had not been reported correctly, when I questioned them I was quickly asked to remove myself......this was very recent, although the incident did not happen within the organisation the employees were required to report its not just the 2x2's who've swept things under the carpet, its still happening and yes the organisation......a child care centre, the year 2013-2015!!!!!! Yes I've reported it!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 23, 2015 3:24:52 GMT -5
Quote - "I think this speaks for itself, of where the idea of "being the only way/ true ministers " came from ." Jack Carroll - The True Ministers ....... Good grief. Jack Carroll invented the "being the only way" movement. I will have to put this in my quote inventory!
(wasn't Irvine supposed to have invented it too?)
Here are two other howlers....
1 - Workers initiated the “quietness program” before the start of meetings in the 1960’s or 1970’s. 2 - The Faith Mission was started by the founder being highly influenced by the Holiness movement. It's not surprising that their women resemble Holiness women.
Bert, of course Bill Carroll would carry on the "Only True Way " idea after all he learnt from Irvine !
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 23, 2015 3:37:33 GMT -5
So sorry if you Ross and others feel my questions were loaded, I did not feel that way and have just reread them and still don't feel that way. Why is it that its ok to question the workers but not ok to question the motives of one who wrote such things about the workers? I feel that with some here asking any questions about Doug are taboo and you'd be penalised! The portrayal of the church dividing families etc was not my experience nor was it imparted to me by my parents of John Hardie being such an unjust man......I'm not saying certain things did not occur what I'm saying is it was not the experience of all!! In regards to the origin of the early church something came to me recently as I watched an elderly lady burn letters from her 'worker' relative, her words 'I don't want just anyone reading them'. Remembering too that not all were educated, not all could rwad or write, those following beliefs either religious or medical often burnt the evidence to not arouse suspicion and often to save their lives......persecution was rife and it still is today. The other thought is many if the older generation were so devoted to this way that it may well have been their thoughts about 'this being the only way ' etc, perhaps much of the 'worker worship' came from them not the platform. Maybe it wasn't your experience but it was the experience of my grandmother.
Why was the "older generation were so devoted to this way?"
You are right in that not all were educated, not all could read or write, -my grandparents couldn't. My own mother only got through the fifth grade. They accepted what ever the workers said as "truth!"
Most of the early workers were fairly well educated. William Irvine (1863–1947), sometimes Irvin or Irwin in contemporary documents, was an evangelist from the late nineteenth century, and continuing through the first half of the twentieth century.
Irvine was born in Kilsyth, located in North Lanarkshire, Scotland, the third of eleven children of a miner. He was educated at Kilsyth Academy and worked as a quarry master before spending two years at John Anderson's Bible Training Institute, Glasgow (1893–1895).
(from wiki)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 23, 2015 3:45:22 GMT -5
Bert, of course Bill Carroll would carry on the "Only True Way " idea after all he learnt from Irvine ! And William Irvine learned it from Jesus... He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and NO man comes unto the Father but through me." Jesus is the ONLY True Way to heaven. Jesus was VERY exclusive! Maybe, William Irvine actually learned from attending two years at John Anderson's Bible Training Institute, Glasgow (1893–1895)
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Jul 23, 2015 3:59:25 GMT -5
Not sure which university you people all study through, or college, but most won't accept wiki references, why because they can be changed by anyone, wasn't that long ago that someone commented that they couldn't find Irvine on wiki......and along he came. Sorry about your grandparents, my great grandmother learnt to read after she professed by reading the bible and remained professing even after learning to read and being told all those 'lies'.........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 4:02:58 GMT -5
There are things Irvine believed that have nothing to do with us. He died an Exe, not a member of our church.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 23, 2015 4:23:49 GMT -5
There are things Irvine believed that have nothing to do with us. He died an Exe, not a member of our church. You wouldn't have your Church without Irvine, Bert !
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 23, 2015 4:24:41 GMT -5
Here's some reasons why a proper CSA policy is necessary...
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 23, 2015 4:27:04 GMT -5
Here's some reasons why a proper CSA policy is necessary... Just noticed Bert, didn't answer that one ! Or he will say he doesn't know EB or CC !!
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 23, 2015 4:31:03 GMT -5
And William Irvine learned it from Jesus... He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and NO man comes unto the Father but through me." Jesus is the ONLY True Way to heaven. Jesus was VERY exclusive! ...and William's Omega Gospel came from Jesus too....? I thought they came from the Waldensians.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 23, 2015 4:31:11 GMT -5
Thanks Roselyn, that's actually a beautiful piece, can't say I knew the fellow and not sure when or where he said it, but look at the 2nd ladt paragraph, he didn't state it was the only way, just that those fulfilling the conditions are 'justified in living by the Gospel............'.......what do you think that means? They had to fulfil man-made ideas and conditions, did Jesus say these conditions must be fulfilled to Preach the Gospel ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 4:33:13 GMT -5
Quote from Magowan re Parker sounded pertinent here:
It may be that Douglas has been raised up to do this work of exposing the nakedness of the living and the dead. There are examples in both Testaments of our scriptures of raised up men, or of men who were used for judgment purposes. And it has even been doubted in theological circles if Judas could have got out of doing the work he did. It was a poor work, and badly rewarded; but as it had to be done, and somebody had to do it: he happened to be the man.
And I could say a great deal more than Douglas about the iniquities of which he complains. But when I had anything to say, I said it TO the men themselves. This blazing abroad of a catalogue of good and evil indiscriminately, would hardly be done by men my age
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 23, 2015 7:18:34 GMT -5
So sorry if you Ross and others feel my questions were loaded, I did not feel that way and have just reread them and still don't feel that way. Why is it that its ok to question the workers but not ok to question the motives of one who wrote such things about the workers? I feel that with some here asking any questions about Doug are taboo and you'd be penalised! Hi Howitis, Sorry if you feel jumped on for questions you asked, but I have re-read your posts several times, and there is definitely some loading in there. You indicated several times that you have done your own research, discovered things about Doug that others don't generally know (and you aren't willing to share) which would seem - by your comments - to make people think less of him. You seem to indicate you think less of him because of what you discovered. Asking questions is one thing. Making sketchy insinuations which you aren't prepared to clarify is another. It does cast a shadow on his character which cannot be investigated (for better or worse). Perhaps my back is up a little because I knew the man Doug was, although I only knew him in his later life. You also said he was "supposedly" going into the work. This clearly insinuates a question over the truth of Doug's statements that he was going into the work. Again, loaded. Not trying to pick on you, just noting. It would be useful to explain your reasons for expressing it this way. I don't think Doug has ever tried to hide his motives. He felt completely deceived. Further investigation into the deception led to anger from the workers, abuse of his family, and his character assassinated. The further he dug, the more rotten the core. He felt it should be exposed, lest others were deceived in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 23, 2015 8:12:21 GMT -5
But a question if I may - what exactly did Parker say about destroying our church? " Any belief that requires domination, cruelty, deliberate lies and fraud in order that it may be preserved, IS NOT OF GOD, and the sooner it is dissolved the better." It's from Doug Parker's " A Spiritual Fraud Exposed" written 1954. It's not on TTT; "NOTE: Doug Parker denied permission to TTT to reprint "A Spiritual Fraud Exposed." TTT retains a copy in its archives, however. " But it is on ilylo's TLT so he must have permission. If you want to read it without leaving any hits for ilylo to trace here is a google cache link to the document; webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mlNSBaZzw2YJ:www.thelyingtruth.info/%3Ff%3Dwri%26id%3Dspiritualfraud+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 23, 2015 8:20:04 GMT -5
So sorry if you Ross and others feel my questions were loaded, I did not feel that way and have just reread them and still don't feel that way. Why is it that its ok to question the workers but not ok to question the motives of one who wrote such things about the workers? I feel that with some here asking any questions about Doug are taboo and you'd be penalised! Hi Howitis, Sorry if you feel jumped on for questions you asked, but I have re-read your posts several times, and there is definitely some loading in there. You indicated several times that you have done your own research, discovered things about Doug that others don't generally know (and you aren't willing to share) which would seem - by your comments - to make people think less of him. You seem to indicate you think less of him because of what you discovered. Asking questions is one thing. Making sketchy insinuations which you aren't prepared to clarify is another. It does cast a shadow on his character which cannot be investigated (for better or worse). Perhaps my back is up a little because I knew the man Doug was, although I only knew him in his later life. You also said he was "supposedly" going into the work. This clearly insinuates a question over the truth of Doug's statements that he was going into the work. Again, loaded. Not trying to pick on you, just noting. It would be useful to explain your reasons for expressing it this way. I don't think Doug has ever tried to hide his motives. He felt completely deceived. Further investigation into the deception led to anger from the workers, abuse of his family, and his character assassinated. The further he dug, the more rotten the core. He felt it should be exposed, lest others were deceived in the same way. And Alfred Magowan didn't agree with Parker in a LOT of areas and said so in his rebuttal. Magowan calls Doug's character into question WAY more severely than I did.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 23, 2015 8:24:05 GMT -5
Dear Jesse Lackman. Exclusivism is a judgemental heresy,is that from God,or Satin?. Are any of us given a right to say someome is not worthy of eternal life? MMM what would have thought of the salvation chances of thief on the cross,if you were in the crowd. Judging others is a Judgemental risk we take before God. Then why do people hold Doug Parker in such high esteem for judging the fellowship the exclusive and vicious way he did? Everyone here seems to want to blow off what Alfred Magowan said about Doug's 1954 document, why is that? Because it doesn't confirm their bias? If leaving the fellowship is so enlightening why don't more people than just @redback and a few others prove it by how they think and post? Can you answer that? And by judgment do you mean something like the exclusive judgment you used in these quotes? A cold callous compassionless cult. "A cold callous compassionless cult." So am I condemned to hell? How could I fellowship in "a cold callous compassionless cult" and not be condemned to hell? Aren't you doing exactly what you are talking about here -->> "No man/woman has the right to stop someone partaking from the Lords table,no one. It is between us as individuals and God."? Why do so many exes seem to think they have the right to broad brush judge and condemn others like that? "JESSE",you said blunt? snip OK,ROSS REMAIN "BLUNT", TO SAVE OTHERS FROM BLIND BONDAGE. 2x2s are in an unsaved BLIND BONDAGE and are condemned to hell? So it is yes from you? Matisse - no. Faune - no. SharonArnold - no. Maja - no Redback - no, no, no, no, etc Blacksheep - not condemned Roselyn - NO ! Cherie - no hberry - no Matt10 - there is no hell Mary - no xna - no withlove - no Ross Boden - No findingtruth - no gene - no ellie - no elizabethcoleman - No snow - No. But then I'm not part of the books cheering section. It's just one more book stating that their interpretation of what God wants is the better one. However, no one ever seems to see the irony of it all. Snow's comment should be the last word on the subject!!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 23, 2015 10:49:31 GMT -5
Here's "slander" about Jesus:
There is no evidence "Jesus of Nazareth" existed. Jesus didn't tick a single box of what the Jews understand to be the Messiah. Many the things which Jesus is said to have done are physically impossible. Jesus wrote nothing down. What we know was written as late as a century later. "Sons of God" are common in other cultures. Jesus' own brother (who knew him the most) was marginalized by other factions of the early church.
EVERY STATEMENT IS A FACT. BUT ARE 'FACTS' TRUTH?
NO.
So if all these are facts, how do you explain what is the supposed 'truth'? Let's take them one by one. There is no evidence "Jesus of Nazareth" existed.There is no evidence other than in the Bible that Jesus existed. In fact, if you factor in that the dying rising Godman was a common aspect of earlier religions it even makes a stronger case for those who say he never existed as a historical flesh and blood person. I think he probably did exist, so I'm just stating things as how they are seen by the group that don't believe he really existed. Jesus didn't tick a single box of what the Jews understand to be the Messiah.This is true. Their Messiah was going to save them from captivity and become a literal King of the Jews and make them a great nation again. They are still waiting for their Messiah to put in an appearance. Many the things which Jesus is said to have done are physically impossible.True. It takes faith to believe anything that is known to be physically impossible, right? Jesus wrote nothing down.He didn't write anything down himself, that we have found anyway. Everything he said or did is all written by someone else. What we know was written as late as a century later.This is true. Some of it is that late in the writing. None of what is written other than possibly the writer of the Gospel of John, are written by those who actually met the flesh and blood Jesus. "Sons of God" are common in other cultures.Yes they are. This is a fact so it is also a truth is it not? There are quite a few that are reported to be born of virgins impregnated by a God. Or in some cases by a Ghost (holy?) Jesus' own brother (who knew him the most) was marginalized by other factions of the early church.I presume you are talking about James here? Yes he was not known to be one of the 12. He was actually a temple priest for a long time. Not sure how this slandered Jesus though. So Bert, how is any of this just 'fact' with no 'truth' involved?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 23, 2015 11:18:30 GMT -5
How does publishing the words of a man, who even published them himself, qualify as slander?? Exactly. People who publish things like what I've quoted demonize, slander and assassinate their own character. Which is why I don't pay much attention to some of the more outrageous stuff. example they are Satanists. That's an obvious one. People will always have issues with something, they will (some of them) write these issues down for all to read. It becomes our job to figure out what 'we' believe and if we don't agree just allow that our experience and understanding is different from someone else's. Jesse, if you find the Friends and Workers group to be the place where you find joy, fellowship and peace, then that is the group for you. You are having a positive experience. Those who left obviously experienced something different from you or they would still be there too, wouldn't they? I believe your experience is one of fellowship love and joy because you have told me that is how it is for you and I respect that as it is clearly your experience. I also accept that it wasn't the experience others had and therefore they will be talking about it in a different light. I don't think either side is lying, because their experience is always their perceptions. However, does their experience or their writing about their experience change your experience? I don't think so. Most of the complaints are that when they left for whatever reason, they have been shunned or labelled as lost out. This is how it was perceived by them. Does it help, or does it confirm that their perceptions are true, when those who are still in the group call them bitter, apostates etc.? I'm pretty sure it confirms their perceptions and just makes the gulf between the two sides even wider. Personally, I don't care what people say about me or what I believe for the most part. If I am happy, at peace and find joy where I am and with what I believe and am doing, then others really don't factor in. I do accept that they believe what they believe, but it doesn't really affect me in anyway unless I let it. I know I can't defend my beliefs and I really don't see any point in doing so most of the time. I know the feeling of wanting to, but I also see it as a waste of time on my part because I am not going to change other people's beliefs for the most part. The only way I know of is to be who I am, live what I believe and let them judge if that is good or bad in their minds. Hopefully it will be a good judgement because hopefully people will like what they see, but it isn't always the case. At the end of the day I have to live with myself. My mother is an example of changing her attitude towards me over time. When I quit professing she was very angry with me. She thought I would be the worst person if I grew up believing what I believed. Over the years she watched me grow into a young adult, become a young mom, etc and recognized that I wasn't materializing into the person she figured I'd become. Towards the end of her life she told me this and told me she accepted me for who I was, what I believed and thought I was a beautiful person. Her saying that, as you can understand, was the most beautiful thing she could have said to me because I always wanted her love and acceptance even though I had to be who I was and follow my path in life. I found out that not being antagonistic towards her beliefs and respecting them when I visited, helped her to see that just because I held different beliefs didn't mean I was the enemy. I wasn't the enemy. I was someone who believed differently. Period. So if it's possible Jesse, don't let all the negatives get to you. Assassination of another's character does speak loudly of the person doing the assassination. Having said that, those who are bitter likely have a reason and negating that reason will never help them let that bitterness go. It will just add to it. JMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 14:43:50 GMT -5
I'm not talking about sides, I'm talking about name calling when he gets upset when others name call but does it himself. Ok lets talk about this a bit. Doug Parker publishes and circulates statements like these, and others of their ilk, in a article titled A Spiritual Fraud Exposed; " Any belief that requires domination, cruelty, deliberate lies and fraud in order that it may be preserved, IS NOT OF GOD, and the sooner it is dissolved the better." " No religious craze of modern times was so unscriptural, so unnatural, so revolting and so unholy." Those statements and others of their ilk essentially condemn everyone in the fellowship to hell. A few points here in response to your offer to talk about this a bit. I think the thread could benefit from some discussion on actual issues rather than focussing on personalities. 1. I don’t see how these two statements condemn everyone in the entire fellowship to hell. I’m not saying they don’t, I’m simply saying I don’t see how they do. It would be useful therefore if you could set out clearly how you come to your conclusion that they essentially condemn everyone in the fellowship to hell. 2. Re statement 1 – “ Any belief that requires ....etc ” – do you accept that the leadership of the 2x2 sect was involved at some time in ‘deliberate lies and fraud’ either in relation to the provision of information, or any failure to provide information, regarding the events relating to the formation of the sect in the early 20th century? 3. Re statement 1– “Any belief that requires ....etc ” – is it your view that it is unreasonable for a person to claim that a religious organisation which is shown to have been deliberately less than truthful about its origins is 'not of God'? 4. Re statement 2 – “No religious craze ......etc ” – do you accept that the events of the early days of the 2x2 sect as reported in the press can reasonably be described as those of a 'religious craze' 5. On the subject of hell, do you find direct or indirect insinuations by others that you are going to hell offensive? 6. What in your view is the 2x2 church's (i.e. the senior workers’) position on the eternal destiny of those who once professed and have subsequently forsaken the 2x2 church, God, the Christian gospel and their belief in Jesus? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 23, 2015 14:58:46 GMT -5
Not to forget that they started some new 'religion' and condemned everyone to hell who did not join it.
|
|
|
Post by shipwreckedsailor on Jul 23, 2015 15:38:10 GMT -5
Not to forget that they started some new 'religion' and condemned everyone to hell who did not join it. Not to argue the point since we all see things through the eyes of what we individually are experiencing, but not all "they" (those following the 2x2) see those of us outside the 2x2 faith as condemned to hell. That being said, and speaking from my own on-going personal experience, my brother (who has been in the work now for over 35 years) tells me I am making choices "outside the Kingdom of God" since I no longer follow the 2x2 way ~ he fails to see that my relationship with God has only become more beautiful, my knowledge and belief in the grace of Christ and Christ's shed blood more precious and comforting. My brother would definitely tell me that my salvation is lost...and to me that's saying I am, by my choices, sending myself to a lost eternity. So there are still those among the 2x2 faith that believe anyone outside the confines of the 2x2 faith are condemned to hell.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 23, 2015 15:40:59 GMT -5
Maybe, William Irvine actually learned from attending two years at John Anderson's Bible Training Institute, Glasgow (1893–1895) Jesus had NEVER attended any Bible Training Institute/school in his days so William Irvine couldn't have learned that from him. Jesus NEVER did sent his sheep to join any sect or religious group of their choice after they became his disciples, like when William Irvine was a Faith Mission preacher from 1895-1900. Well of course not, Nathan! Such inane statements do nothing for a person's credibility.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 23, 2015 15:45:56 GMT -5
But a question if I may - what exactly did Parker say about destroying our church? " Any belief that requires domination, cruelty, deliberate lies and fraud in order that it may be preserved, IS NOT OF GOD, and the sooner it is dissolved the better." It's from Doug Parker's " A Spiritual Fraud Exposed" written 1954. It's not on TTT; "NOTE: Doug Parker denied permission to TTT to reprint "A Spiritual Fraud Exposed." TTT retains a copy in its archives, however. " But it is on ilylo's TLT so he must have permission. If you want to read it without leaving any hits for ilylo to trace here is a google cache link to the document; webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mlNSBaZzw2YJ:www.thelyingtruth.info/%3Ff%3Dwri%26id%3Dspiritualfraud+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usWhy would Doug's permission be needed to reprint something that was first published over sixty years ago?
|
|